Here's the problem, IMO, with that logic (taking the Alford plea by DE, JB and JM being indicative of "fear of the evidence" [for lack of a better term]). Alford pleas have generally been entered prior to trial, not post conviction. In fact, I've researched pretty thoroughly and not found one case (except this one) where a convicted murderer was released from Death Row by taking an Alford plea. So, my problem about the strength of the evidence is the actions of the State in accepting a post conviction Alford plea for three child murderers (if the State actually believes them to be guilty). I understand why DE, JB and JM took the plea. They had already been convicted of murders for which they were innocent. Why would they not fear another conviction for this crime, even though they're innocent? Yeah, they're being told by attorneys that "this time would be different" and that "this time we've got the goods" and so on, but with their freedom (and DE's very life) on the line, I totally understand taking the deal. Like I said, what I find much more unfathomable is why the State would release three convicted killers on Alford pleas!
I still don't understand how people think that a State would allow CONVICTED murderers loose on society unless they had reason to believe they're not guilty. If the released were to turn around and commit another murder, the state would be facing a ton more problems and costs than another simple criminal trial.